Can the White House Deficit Reduction Commission Succeed?
* Ann Fudge — former president of Young & Rubicam Brands. Again, there’s no doubt Fudge is an estimable woman, very smart and capable. But shouldn’t appointees to a Commission on deficit reduction have some, you know, experience in reducing government deficits? Cote and Fudge aren’t exactly window dressing, but realistically, how much are they going to contribute?
* Andy Stern — president of the Service Employees International Union. Now why did the president go and ruin it? An outspoken proponent of “social justice” — a budget euphemism for adding at least three zeroes to every line item possible — Stern, and the powerful union he represents, is there to make sure the Commission goes heavy on tax increases and light on budget cuts.
In addition to the six members named by the president, both parties get to name six commissioners each to the panel. Harry Reid has already named his three candidates: Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad; Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus; and Harry’s pal, Majority Whip Dick Durbin. Both Conrad and Baucus are considered fiscal moderates, while Durbin will probably be a close ally of Stern on the Commission in making sure the budget ax falls lightly on their constituencies.
Indeed, it is fairly obvious that the Commission will have to mix budget cuts and tax increases in order to achieve any deficit reduction at all. There is also little doubt that the medicine will be bitter and difficult to swallow. The biggest item on the table will be defense spending, with non-defense discretionary spending the second biggest target. Taken together, they represent about 1/3 of the budget — not nearly enough to achieve the kind of savings necessary to put a dent in our trillion dollar plus deficits.
What about entitlements? The second part of the Commission’s mission will be to:
propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.
So who wants to walk the plank first? Who is going to vote to cut Social Security and Medicare? Possibly, the Commission will fiddle with the retirement age and perhaps raise copayments slightly for Medicare. But don’t expect any grand compromise that would put our fiscal house in order. This was one of the reasons that legislators refused to form their own commission to reduce the deficit. There is no political upside to getting seniors roiling mad at you, not to mention the delicious demagoguery potential in skewering the other side for daring to propose a solution to the entitlement crisis by laying hands on old folks’ bennies.
So without meaningful entitlement reform, that leaves one option: raising taxes. And since soaking the rich has just about played itself out, the only place to find the amount of cash that would be meaningful to deficit reduction is in the payroll checks of the middle class. At this point, we come face to face with the ultimate question: What kind of government are you willing to pay for? What services? What programs? No one likes taxes, and most people think they’re overtaxed already. But the consequences of that attitude have helped get us in this mess, and we’re not going to get out of it unless we start making hard choices — any choices — on what we want, and what we need from government.
Can the Commission be realistically expected to meet these kinds of expectations? Not in the short term. Their recommendations are due by December 1 of this year, not coincidentally after the midterm elections. Both Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid have promised a vote on the Commission’s recommendations before the end of this Congress in late December. An up or down vote on the entire package is unlikely given the almost certain-to-be-controversial nature of many of the Commission’s proposals. This will encourage cherry-picking the easiest targets, while leaving the difficult decisions on the floor.
But given the deficit crisis we face, it might be time for both sides of the aisle to consider the consequences of failure. Everyone agrees the deficits are unsustainable. So why not act like it?
The President, in all cases, is responsible to propose a balances budget to the congress.
The American people are at fault for electing and re-electing Congressmen that earmark and vote for deficit spending.
The grandchildren, especially the aborted ones, are responsible for the waste and abuse of the current generation!
Talk about a “me now” society!
Mr. Moran I suggest you study a little history. When has a commissions report no matter how good it was been adopted? This is Obama and Congress abducating their resposibility for the Federal budget.Congress will act when the debt crisis is directly upon us.
For your edification I urge you to read the Grace Commissions report 30 years ago.
“Can the White House Deficit Reduction Commission Succeed?”
No.
Next question?
What a silly article.
Actually taking Obama at his “word” [sic].
No, Mr. Moran, the Commission is created as another layer, another smokescreen, another distraction from actually doing something…except “making excuses for” (see Old English: “justifying”) doing whatever Obama’s true intent may be.
Ruben Navarrette now has some serious competition for worst PJM writer!
You are either kidding or on dope Mr. Moran.
Barrack Hussein Obama is in so far over his head that an offshore oil drilling rig couldn’t go deep enough to tickle his big ears.
The man is clueless, but worse yet he gave free reign of his authority and power to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid; producing a triad of government propelled by brute force statism the magnitude of which has never been seen anywhere in the world before now.
Our nation faces a crisis alright. It’s just too bad that the fools that elected this man are just now beginning to see things for what they are: a critical situation that has our country held hostage in an explosive state of economic fear and political uncertainty; hoping and praying to God that we can get rid of this insanity before it destroys whatever is left.
It would be nice if you stop coping out by riding the “we train” of thought blaming both sides of the aisle when the truth is that were it not for the Republicans in Congress there is more than a strong chance you would now be staring at the world through steel bars.
At the very least government controlled speech, healthcare, cap and trade, amnesty for illegal Hispanics and 65-70% tax of individual’s gross income would already be law.
Seriously, Obama is attempting more smoke and mirrors. He is spending beyond sanity and now wishes to have a commission to control it? Lets open the flood gates and then call for controlling a few gallons.
How much is this commission going to add to the deficit???…With the likes of Andy Stern in it, do you think he is going to work for free???..It is like creating a commission to deal with organized crime,and having it be chaired by people in the Mafia…Two things..Obama must really know what he is doing ,or he is really,really stupid….
Of course! It will succeed in demonstrating what a lying ,dissembling hypocrite Obama is.
This is ridiculous. We have a “deficit reduction commission.” It’s called the United States Congress, and it’s about frakking time it started doing its job.
For your edification I urge you to read the Grace Commissions report 30 years ago. okay
The Commission will fail. For the handlers are Government selected, run and ‘think’ exactly like their ‘Big Government is there to help, not hinder’ usurpers, statists.
Be prepared for Obama announcing, ‘This isn’t the White House Deficit Reduction Commission that I knew..’ in 3.. 2.. 1.
It’s amusing to observe the ridiculous “analysis” and theatre associated with what is incorrectly called a budget “crises”. The term crisis implies that which is unforseen and occurs without warning, neither of which can be legitimately claimed about the deficit spending addiction in Washington. It’s as if we are to believe that declining revenues and perpertual year-over-year budget increases only recently have been found to produce deficits. Fascinating! Hardly.
I my home state, our governor has addressed declining tax revenues and previously absurd levels of legislative spending increases by mandating across the board reductions in ALL budgets (no sacred cows). This common sense approach has successfully kept deficits under control for the last 2 years. Coincidentally, this is what most sound businesses and households are doing right now in order to cope with declining incomes and high unemployment (to the chagrin of most economists).
The budget “crisis” was never a crisis and the cure, though not painless (are they ever?) is not so complex that we need a “commission” to figure out what any family who has balanced their budget already knows. What we need is some real leadership – starting with our President.
Ed Wallis has it right,Mr. Moran is in the same league with Ruben
Narravette and Ryan Mauro, Minor Leagues.
I agree it will be a tough job. Dems will work to protect their social spending constituencies. Repubs will work to protect their corporate constituencies. It’s real amazing how much pork is in the total budget, whether social programs or defense spending. Check out the group Citizens Against Government Waste.
Re the Grace Commission reports, yes, they had good things. But that was 30 years ago and this is now. In my state, a Dem governor has made some tough budget choices and reduced spending. Of course, Colorado is constitutionally mandated to have a balanced budget.
We can only hope this commission will accomplish something. And I don’t object to paying a bit more in taxes if spending gets cut way, way back, across the board.
Surely you must know what a farce this whole thing is. No commission has ever had a measurable impact on matters such as these. The sad thing is that you have already presupposed that somehow tax increases are necessary. Have you been living on another planet for the last 50 years. Every increase in taxes is simply accompanied by more spending and this will be absolutely true in this case as well. The federal beast MUST be starved of additional revenue and taxes cut, not raised. What you propose, more taxes, is simply a greater and greater intrusion on the people’s liberty, something ALL statists love. You are clearly in agreement with the statists on this matter. What are doing even contributing on this website?
Go here to see how it could be accomplished:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=04
Anybody that buys into this BS is room temperature. First off, you can’t spend your way out of a recession/depression. We are probably in a depression, no one will admit it until it is obvious beyond all belief.
Just how much blood can they squeeze out of a turnip?
The IRS will be the new gestapo and I can assure you that they will probably make the gestapo look like nice guys.
Keynesian economics did not work in the 30′s and we at least had a person actually interested in America, now we have a chicago thug and he loves the muslims and hates everything white, Christian or Jewish. He also fails to realize that black did not make this country.
Dr Walter Williams wrote a piece back in the 90′s and he pointed out that their is no functioning govt at any level anywhere in the world that is black run. We can now add the US to that list.
Ah! We find the estimable Moran here, who won’t allow comments on his own blog on the matter at hand. If the President wants to stall an issue, and employ some of his buddies, what better tactic than a paid commission with offices and staff, plus a mandate to rifle the files of financial institutions. It could be dragged out to eternity with proper handling. The end item, a report, is easily sidestepped once issued, and it will take its place with tons of other studies, reports and recommendations from so-called experts and manipulators in the archives, never to be read again.